Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello,
Howdy!
* Albert Chin wrote on Wed, May 17, 2006 at 03:18:09AM CEST:
The following patch addresses
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2006-04/msg00044.html. I
added a new variable, hardcode_direct_static, to indicate if
hardcode_direct=yes would hardcode a static library dependency. This
impacts HP-UX/PA and AIX.
Patch against HEAD.
This patch is missing a documentation update (doc/libtool.texi).
I'll commit one presently.
I'm not sure whether it should be backported, probably not.
Looks like a new feature to me... no backport rqd imho.
Does the testsuite pass with this?
It passes on my Gentoo and Tiger laptops. I believe Albert has seen
no regressions on his architectures (judging by the related testsuite
patch).
2006-05-16 Albert Chin-A-Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh, libltdl/m4/libtool.m4
(_LT_LINKER_SHLIBS, _LT_LANG_CXX_CONFIG, _LT_LANG_F77_CONFIG,
_LT_LANG_FC_CONFIG) [ aix4*, aix5*, hpux10*, hpux11* ]:
Introduce a new variable, hardcode_direct_static, which
would ignore hardcode_direct=yes if the result would create a
static library dependency. Static library dependencies are
immune to $shlibpath_var.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://blog.azazil.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://trac.azazil.net/projects/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
